If Someone Like Edwards is Elected President, Will U.S. Military Be Able to Pull Troops and Equipment Out in First Year of New Administration?

Democrat John Edwards has promised to pull the U.S. military completely out of Iraq in the first year of his Presidency as part of his campaign platform. A question: if an anti-war candidate like Edwards is elected in November, can the military fulfill that wish in one year, assuming that the current administration keeps troop levels around 130,000?

The answer is: probably not. It's simple physics and logistics. The military brass say that they can move one combat brigade out of Iraq per month. There are between nineteen and twenty combat and support brigades and their equipment currently deployed. That's a minimum of twenty months, if all the ships and transport aircraft stay available and don't have maintenance issues.

The military pace is more realistic than the political pace.

The only way that a promise like Edwards' can be fulfilled is if President Bush starts withdrawing troops on a large scale in 2008, which is doubtful.

Edwards and the others shouldn't make promises that they can't keep. A more realistic promise is to withdraw troops by the end of their first term. The politicians are really going to mess things up if they have their way.

Edwards and Obama Employ Their Wives to Attack Hillary's Positions: Canidates' Families Are Getting Into It

John Edwards and Barak Obama have been taking a back seat to their wives lately, allowing them to go after Hillary Clinton's positions themselves.

Are Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama running for President themselves? It sounds an awful lot like they are, telling their husbands to shut up and stand aside while they take care of Hillary as well as their other opponents.

Elizabeth Edwards attacked Obama's "holier-than-thou" attitude on Iraq, and Clinton on her "lack of leadership on health care and Iraq."

Michelle Obama went after Clinton's example of family: "If you can't run your own house, you certainly cannot run the White House." But she has also joked about her husband's big ears, his not putting the butter away, his funny name, and so on. Analysts aren't sure of what to make of her.

I'm waiting for Bill Clinton to jump in on this so that the three-way dance will be complete.

Seems like the spouses of the candidates are really getting into this campaign, which is a little unusual. And the candidates are not returning fire, either, ignoring the barbs coming from the candidates' families.

It's been quite a while since the Democratic side has been this interesting in a Presidential campaign.

More Political Hypocrisy: Critics Slam Coulter for Calling Edwards a Gay Slur, But It's OK for Them to Call Their Rivals "Nazis"

Mr. Pot, leave Mr. Kettle alone.

Ann Coulter turned a lot of heads by referring to John Edwards as a "faggot" and then followed up her remarks by saying she wouldn't denigrate gays by comparing them to John Edwards.

Demands from various individuals and groups have been for her to apologize for her remarks.

I don't think she should. Not until some others do first.

After all, some of these SAME people have nothing to say when THEY refer to their political opponents (or the U.S. military--SENATOR DURBIN) as "Nazis" or other foul expressions.

It's opposite sides of the same coin. Throw the thing out.

But these people shouldn't go crying foul while overlooking the use of the Nazi label against the other side. "Nazi" hurts just as much as the aforementioned gay slur.

It's just more of the "I'm going to hit you. Don't hit me back" routine.